31His servants said to him, “Look, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings; let us put sackcloth around our waists and ropes on our heads, and go out to the king of Israel; perhaps he will spare your life.”
The Hebrew or Greek which are translated into English as “sackcloth” are rendered into Chamula Tzotzil as “sad-heart clothes.” (Source: Robert Bascom)
Pohnpeian and Chuukese translate it as “clothing-of sadness,” Eastern Highland Otomi uses “clothing that hurts,” Central Mazahua “that which is scratchy,” Tae’ and Zarma “rags” (Source: Reiling / Swellengrebel), and Tangale as “torn clothes that show contrition on the body” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin). In the English translation by Goldingay (2018), “put on sackcloth” is translated as wrap on sack.
“In Turkana, a woman removes her normal everyday skin clothes and ornaments and wears rather poor skins during the time of mourning. The whole custom is known as ngiboro. It is very difficult to translate putting on sackcloth because even material like sacking is unfamiliar. The Haya, on the other hand, have a mourning cloth made out of the bark of a tree; and the use of this cloth is similar to the Jewish use of sackcloth. It was found that in both the Turkana and Ruhaya common language translations, their traditional mourning ceremonies were used.” (Source: Rachel Konyoro in The Bible Translator1985, p. 221ff. )
Click or tap here to see a short video clip showing what a sackcloth looked like in biblical times (source: Bible Lands 2012)
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin terms that are typically translated as “mercy” (or “compassion” or “kindness”) in English are translated in various ways. Bratcher / Nida classify them in (1) those based on the quality of heart, or other psychological center, (2) those which introduce the concept of weeping or extreme sorrow, (3) those which involve willingness to look upon and recognize the condition of others, or (4) those which involve a variety of intense feelings.
While the Englishmercy originates from the Latinmerces, originally “price paid,” Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, Corsican, Catalan) and other Germanic languages (German, Swedish, Danish — Barmherzigkeit, barmhärtighet and barmhjertighed, respectively) tend to follow the Latin misericordia, lit. “misery-heart.”
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, Omanson / Ellington recommend the inclusive form “since the king as well as his officials had probably heard this rumor.” However, both the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive pronoun (excluding the king).
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.
One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, -sete (せて) or “let/allow (for me)” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”
Behold now … let us …: The Hebrew text of this verse twice has a particle of entreaty, which is sometimes translated “please.” Here neither Revised Standard Version nor Good News Translation attempts to translate it. But compare Walsh’s rendering: “Look, m’lord … let us, if you will….” In addition, these words are introduced by the Hebrew focusing particle rendered Behold, which is also left untranslated by many English versions.
We have heard: The first person plural pronoun we should be understood and translated as inclusive since the king as well as his officials had probably heard this rumor.
The kings of the house of Israel: It will be misleading in most languages to translate this expression literally. Most modern versions say simply “the kings of Israel.”
Merciful kings is literally “kings of mercy.” Regarding the Hebrew noun chesed, which is rendered merciful, see the comments on “deal loyally” in 1 Kgs 2.7. This noun often refers to loyalty or faithfulness in fulfillment of a covenant relationship. For this reason De Vries translates the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings as “the kings of the House of Israel are certainly kings who honor treaties.” Revised English Bible expresses the sense as “the Israelite kings are men to be trusted,” and Nouvelle Bible Segond says “the kings of the house of Israel are loyal.” Anchor Bible similarly says “the kings of the House of Israel are kings of loyalty,” but this is not idiomatic English. For translation reasons many languages will require a verbal expression to translate this idea; for example, a possible rendering is “the kings of Israel are kings who show mercy to people” or “Israel’s kings keep their agreements” (Contemporary English Version), depending on which interpretation is followed. Either interpretation is acceptable.
Let us put sackcloth on our loins: Sackcloth was worn to show a person’s sorrow or penitence. The wearing of coarse cloth is referred to frequently in the Old Testament (for example, Gen 37.34; 2 Sam 21.10; Psa 30.11). In many languages it will be wise to make explicit the meaning of this action by adding “to show our sorrow” or something similar. New Living Translation renders this clause as “So let’s humble ourselves by wearing sackcloth.” For loins see the comments on 1 Kgs 2.5.
Ropes upon our heads: The exact form and meaning of this practice is uncertain, but it probably is a symbol of submission or captivity. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus states that this was a Syrian form of supplication. The exact manner of this action is not clear. The Hebrew says simply “ropes on our heads” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). This seems to mean that the ropes were wrapped around their heads (so Revised English Bible, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, La Bible Pléiade) and not simply coiled up and placed on top of their heads. Other interpreters understand this to mean that ropes were hung around their necks (so Good News Translation, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Maredsous). While there is no way to be certain which interpretation is correct, the latter seems more logical.
Perhaps he will spare your life: Your life is the reading of the Masoretic Text. Some modern versions follow the ancient versions in reading “our lives” (so Biblia Dios Habla Hoy), but the Masoretic Text fits well with what follows in the next verse.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.